Welfare and Dependency

[Michael]

I've been reading quite a bit about world agriculture lately. One of the things that is so striking is the way leftwing critics of food aid to Africa seem to have universal agreement that giving food aid to Africa is bad because it just fosters dependency.

How come leftwingers never make this same argument against giving food aid to their own people in first world countries?

Are people in third world countries uniquely succeptable to 'dependency' in a way that people in first world countries are not?

What's up with this hypocrisy? Or is this just a double-standard? Or is it cognitive dissonance?

Fact is, the left is making one argument in one policy area and the opposite argument in another policy area. Because of this, it is hard to take either position seriously since at least one of the two positions is just bullshit partisan politics. I wonder which is which?

[Non Sequitur]

there does seem to be some kind double standard or just a plain lack of logic there. I didn't know that was an issue among the left. I don't read much articles about agriculture though.

it would be interesting to see if they would make the same arguments about welfare like programs in the past

[andrewl]

I've been reading quite a bit about world agriculture lately. One of the things that is so striking is the way leftwing critics of food aid to Africa seem to have universal agreement that giving food aid to Africa is bad because it just fosters dependency.

How come leftwingers never make this same argument against giving food aid to their own people in first world countries?

Are people in third world countries uniquely succeptable to 'dependency' in a way that people in first world countries are not?

What's up with this hypocrisy? Or is this just a double-standard? Or is it cognitive dissonance?

Fact is, the left is making one argument in one policy area and the opposite argument in another policy area. Because of this, it is hard to take either position seriously since at least one of the two positions is just bullshit partisan politics. I wonder which is which?

I would cautiously say yes to this, especially in places where they have overshot their carrying capacity (mostly as a result of colonialism and food aid).

Andrew

[Michael]

I would cautiously say yes to this, especially in places where they have overshot their carrying capacity (mostly as a result of colonialism and food aid).

Andrew
Africa's food production is well below their present capacity (as it has been for all of the last hundred years) - even without any western agricultural techniques.

Indeed, one might point out that the 'colonialism' argument doesn't actually hold up with the facts.

Fact is, Africa's problems are way beyond blaming on colonialism. That's a tired argument and doesn't fit most of the facts.

The number one barrier to African food production is the lack of all-weather roads. Africa just doesn't have many of those at all. This ensures that all food grown must be marketed locally (within a dozen miles or so of where it is grown). This limits food production, food markets and food consumption. No colonial history required.

[andrewl]

Africa's food production is well below their present capacity (as it has been for all of the last hundred years) - even without any western agricultural techniques.

Not if you count the predictable regularity of severe droughts in africa that are known to take place on the scale of decades and centuries. There is a reason those populations remained way lower than they are today for thousands of years prior to colonialism.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16967-africa-trapped-in-megadrought-cycle.html

And now they are also way more susceptible to climate change then those of us in the developed world, climate change that is mainly caused by the developed world that is. Another argument for why they become more dependent on food aid.

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html

Indeed, one might point out that the 'colonialism' argument doesn't actually hold up with the facts.

Fact is, Africa's problems are way beyond blaming on colonialism. That's a tired argument and doesn't fit most of the facts. Certainly Africa's population did rise significantly as a result of colonialism and food aid though.

The number one barrier to African food production is the lack of all-weather roads. Africa just doesn't have many of those at all. This ensures that all food grown must be marketed locally (within a dozen miles or so of where it is grown). This limits food production, food markets and food consumption. No colonial history required.Roads do nto prevent drought though. In fact, roads actually contribute to deforestation and desertification, making drought even worse and more frequent, as well as floods.

i would also note that food markets accessible by road to feed a growing population are not at all required in the absence of colonialism.

Andrew

[Greendruid]

Africa's food production is well below their present capacity (as it has been for all of the last hundred years) - even without any western agricultural techniques.

Indeed, one might point out that the 'colonialism' argument doesn't actually hold up with the facts.

Fact is, Africa's problems are way beyond blaming on colonialism. That's a tired argument and doesn't fit most of the facts.

The number one barrier to African food production is the lack of all-weather roads. Africa just doesn't have many of those at all. This ensures that all food grown must be marketed locally (within a dozen miles or so of where it is grown). This limits food production, food markets and food consumption. No colonial history required.

I would disagree and cite civil war and inter-group conflict as the number one problem facing African farmers today. Warlords take the majority of food and redistribute it as they see fit. Couple this with the predatory practices of companies like Monsanto and you have two sets of indentured servitude to owe your production to. Who would even want to be a farmer in such a hostile situation?

[Margot]

I've been reading quite a bit about world agriculture lately. One of the things that is so striking is the way leftwing critics of food aid to Africa seem to have universal agreement that giving food aid to Africa is bad because it just fosters dependency.

How come leftwingers never make this same argument against giving food aid to their own people in first world countries?

Are people in third world countries uniquely succeptable to 'dependency' in a way that people in first world countries are not?

What's up with this hypocrisy? Or is this just a double-standard? Or is it cognitive dissonance?

Fact is, the left is making one argument in one policy area and the opposite argument in another policy area. Because of this, it is hard to take either position seriously since at least one of the two positions is just bullshit partisan politics. I wonder which is which?


OK, I know this sounds nit-picky, but I haven't heard the left en masse arguing that it's a bad idea to take food to Africa. Ever.

Who's saying this?

[andrewl]

OK, I know this sounds nit-picky, but I haven't heard the left en masse arguing that it's a bad idea to take food to Africa. Ever.

Who's saying this?

Daniel Quinn has been saying it for some time now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Race

Although i would agree that he is not representative of the left. (or the right).

Here is a video if him and a biologist discussing the idea.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826621532426926190#

Andrew

[Donkey]

I would say the number one problem with giving free food to an impovershed country is that it destroys a subsistence culture. We did it in Mexico, why not in Africa too? It doesn't matter if the food is free, or "cheap." If we pay our farmers far above what their food is worth to drive around in a tractor all day, then how is a small-scale framer in Namibia or Northeast Ohio supposed to compete?

A more responsible idea would be to pay African farmers to produce, rather than shutting them out with mountains of corn (the production of which is incidentally only possible with the gallons of fuel that we rape from their countries).

[Lily]

Call me a cynic, but when the U.S. gives aid to any third world nation, I look for the "what's in it for us?" angle. With Africa, my first two guesses are Monsanto and Big Oil.

[The Drunk Guy]

The problem with Africa is that we expect those nations to behave as we do. Africa has a bronze-age culture that is ruthless and harsh because colonialism there was a complete failure. Without the resources available to "modernize" their industrial capacities, they were just left to wander about aimlessly while the empires sucked them dry of what little bit they did have. Add to that the racist act of ignoring their educational needs and that leaves you with an ancient culture with AK-47s and machetes. Scary shit happens in Africa.

Anyway, to the OP...I haven't heard of the left fighting aid, but I would bet money on their motives being something other than 'not wanting to create a dependency. My guess is that the logistics required to successfully deliver said food would be more costly than the actual food. :shrug: Mostly, however, I feel a strong motivation in our government is the need to pretend Africa doesn't exist. We just want it, and all its horror stories, to go away.

[Michael]

OK, I know this sounds nit-picky, but I haven't heard the left en masse arguing that it's a bad idea to take food to Africa. Ever.

Who's saying this?

They aren't. That's my point.

The left is arguing that agricultural development assistance is wrong (because it is part of the western industrial-agricultural behmoth) and thus, western countries don't give much agricultural development aid anymore - they just give "food" aid (part of our subsidized surpluses) instead.

The left objects to that 'food aid' as well - specifically because it fosters dependency.

But the left doesn't object to 'food aid' (ie. Welfare) in the USA for fostering the same dependency.

[Americano]

Call me a cynic, but when the U.S. gives aid to any third world nation, I look for the "what's in it for us?" angle. With Africa, my first two guesses are Monsanto and Big Oil.

Include big ag and Bingo!

[Margot]

They aren't. That's my point.

The left is arguing that agricultural development assistance is wrong (because it is part of the western industrial-agricultural behmoth) and thus, western countries don't give much agricultural development aid anymore - they just give "food" aid (part of our subsidized surpluses) instead.

The left objects to that 'food aid' as well - specifically because it fosters dependency.

But the left doesn't object to 'food aid' (ie. Welfare) in the USA for fostering the same dependency.

Who is this great and mysterious "the left?" I'm left and I'm not saying that. Are there faces and names I should be attributing to this assertion, or am I not supposed to look behind the curtain?

[Michael]

Who is this great and mysterious "the left?" I'm left and I'm not saying that. Are there faces and names I should be attributing to this assertion, or am I not supposed to look behind the curtain?
No, not any particular person. I'm referring to the mainstream literature generally, various think-tanks, foundation-financed publications, research institutes and NGO's involved in the issues of foreign aid for Africa - particularly issues involving food development.

In this field, the rightwing would be defined as those that are either entirely 'opposed', or they support a generally pro-corporate/capitalist agenda. This would be Cato, AEI and Rand (for example).

Those of the leftwing would be defined as those who generally support the idea on principle, but differ about the ways and means of doing so. In this respect, pretty much the whole of the [mainstream western] debate about development aid for Africa occurs almost entirely within the spectrum of 'the left'.

It is also to be noted that direct food aid from first world nations does tend to serve the interests of first world nations and big-ag (we have a problem with subsidies). Opposing this is a 'leftwing' policy position by definition.

That is to say, there are lots of references in this type of literature mentioning the opposition to direct food-aid because of the fostering dependency argument - as well as the fact that it harms the indigenous farmers (which further contributes to the dependency problem). It is part of the background in many articles on the topic of dealing with developmental issues about Africa and Western aid and development money.

I'm not an expert on the topic, but it is a topic I've been reading about for a few years because it is interesting. I can post links to various articles that do mention the issue if you like, but I wasn't expecting to get into a discussion about African aid development here. :shrug:

I was more interested in the general idea of welfare and what people think about it - meaning the public provision of private subsistance. We do it formally in the west through social programs and we do it informally in various third world nations on an international level. The two issues do seem to have certain surface similarities that I figured might stimulate or stir up some debate here. Looks like its working so far! :D

[Non Sequitur]

I was more interested in the general idea of welfare and what people think about it - meaning the public provision of private subsistance. We do it formally in the west through social programs and we do it informally in various third world nations on an international level. The two issues do seem to have certain surface similarities that I figured might stimulate or stir up some debate here. Looks like its working so far! :D

I'm actually really torn on that one. Eventually I come to the conclusion that some form of welfare is good partly because of practical reasons and partly because of biblical reasons.

[Michael]

I'm actually really torn on that one. Eventually I come to the conclusion that some form of welfare is good partly because of practical reasons and partly because of biblical reasons.

I don't have any problem with welfare, I just have a problem with the bullshit we try to fool ourselves into thinking about it. It isn't a right, it isn't good, it doesn't empower anyone and its not particularly kind or charitable.

As far as I'm concerned, welfare is just a public policy whereby the rich bribe the poor in order to buy social peace. Nothing more, nothing less. This applies on a domestic level as much as it does on an international level.

[Margot]

No, not any particular person. I'm referring to the mainstream literature generally, various think-tanks, foundation-financed publications, research institutes and NGO's involved in the issues of foreign aid for Africa - particularly issues involving food development.

In this field, the rightwing would be defined as those that are either entirely 'opposed', or they support a generally pro-corporate/capitalist agenda. This would be Cato, AEI and Rand (for example).

Those of the leftwing would be defined as those who generally support the idea on principle, but differ about the ways and means of doing so. In this respect, pretty much the whole of the [mainstream western] debate about development aid for Africa occurs almost entirely within the spectrum of 'the left'.

It is also to be noted that direct food aid from first world nations does tend to serve the interests of first world nations and big-ag (we have a problem with subsidies). Opposing this is a 'leftwing' policy position by definition.

That is to say, there are lots of references in this type of literature mentioning the opposition to direct food-aid because of the fostering dependency argument - as well as the fact that it harms the indigenous farmers (which further contributes to the dependency problem). It is part of the background in many articles on the topic of dealing with developmental issues about Africa and Western aid and development money.

I'm not an expert on the topic, but it is a topic I've been reading about for a few years because it is interesting. I can post links to various articles that do mention the issue if you like, but I wasn't expecting to get into a discussion about African aid development here. :shrug:

I was more interested in the general idea of welfare and what people think about it - meaning the public provision of private subsistance. We do it formally in the west through social programs and we do it informally in various third world nations on an international level. The two issues do seem to have certain surface similarities that I figured might stimulate or stir up some debate here. Looks like its working so far! :D

I'm not asking for you to name one particular person. I'm asking about this "left." I've never heard the left say any of that. If you could, you know, cite these sources that contradict themselves that'd be, you know, swell.

If one facet of this great and mysterious left is saying one thing, and another is saying another thing, are these two lefts the same "the left?" And if all "the left" is saying what you say they're saying, well, I want to know who exactly is saying what you say they're saying.

[Michael]

I'm not asking for you to name one particular person. I'm asking about this "left." I've never heard the left say any of that. If you could, you know, cite these sources that contradict themselves that'd be, you know, swell.

If one facet of this great and mysterious left is saying one thing, and another is saying another thing, are these two lefts the same "the left?" And if all "the left" is saying what you say they're saying, well, I want to know who exactly is saying what you say they're saying.

Okay.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=58056

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,396031,00.html

http://www.inwent.org/E+Z/zeitschr/de102-8.htm

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a790978557

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4185550.stm

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26105775.htm

http://www.odi.org.uk/projects/details.asp?id=1213&title=dependency-humanitarian-relief-critical-analysis

[Michael]

I'm actually really torn on that one. Eventually I come to the conclusion that some form of welfare is good partly because of practical reasons and partly because of biblical reasons.

Yes, the Bible does seem to support the idea of charity and it would seem that Christians are morally bound to give to charity.

And I do agree that charity is a valid reason for supporting welfare policies. I don't subscribe to this view, but it certainly is a reasonable and valid one.

My problem with that viewpoint is that if giving to charity is good on its own terms, then inefficiency or ineffectiveness becomes moot does it not?

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, the Bible does seem to support the idea of charity and it would seem that Christians are morally bound to give to charity.

And I do agree that charity is a valid reason for supporting welfare policies. I don't subscribe to this view, but it certainly is a reasonable and valid one.

My problem with that viewpoint is that if giving to charity is good on its own terms, then inefficiency or ineffectiveness becomes moot does it not?

If we want to quibble there is a semi-solid argument that the Bible supports state-sponsored welfare (or at least the Old Testament), but we don't have to into that if you don't want :D

But back to your point, The question I think is what does the Bible support? All charity or smart charity? For example, frequently in inner city churches (the kind I want to specialize in) you have very poor people from the community coming to the church door asking for cash. Now too frequently I know that if I give these people cash they will spend it on drugs and/or alcohol instead of the food or gas they say they need the money for. Given this reality, it is wrong for a church to say "no we won't give you cash"? My answer is no because I don't think the Bible want Christians to be stupid and taken advantage of ("I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" Matthew 10:16)

My solution to this problem is simple actually. Someone asks for cash for food or groceries I'll offer instead to go and buy them whatever they need at the store or gas station just I won't give them cash. If they don't take me up on the offer, well that's a pretty good indication of their intentions.

[The Drunk Guy]

If we want to quibble there is a semi-solid argument that the Bible supports state-sponsored welfare (or at least the Old Testament), but we don't have to into that if you don't want :D

But back to your point, The question I think is what does the Bible support? All charity or smart charity? For example, frequently in inner city churches (the kind I want to specialize in) you have very poor people from the community coming to the church door asking for cash. Now too frequently I know that if I give these people cash they will spend it on drugs and/or alcohol instead of the food or gas they say they need the money for. Given this reality, it is wrong for a church to say "no we won't give you cash"? My answer is no because I don't think the Bible want Christians to be stupid and taken advantage of ("I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" Matthew 10:16)

My solution to this problem is simple actually. Someone asks for cash for food or groceries I'll offer instead to go and buy them whatever they need at the store or gas station just I won't give them cash. If they don't take me up on the offer, well that's a pretty good indication of their intentions.I agree with cash-requests. But does that make them dependent on you for all meals?

Let's say you're running a soup kitchen for the homeless. You get a crew of five guys twice a day that are first in line, but you also have to turn away five people twice a day because you run out of grub. Is it right to tell the first group of five that they can't have any?

***

I feel that charity is important, but I feel that it is only effectual when we prevent it from becoming habit. I believe strongly that a "hand up" is far more effective than a "hand out." In other words, feeding a homeless person everyday isn't going to solve his problem, it just makes his problem last longer. However, offering a program to help give the guy a leg up on some job interviews and set him up with some dirty apartment and you have got someone off the streets.

The problem is that there aren't enough jobs for everyone. So now what? Do we help sustain them to live a long life in the rat-infested alleys?

:shrug:

[Michael]

My solution to this problem is simple actually. Someone asks for cash for food or groceries I'll offer instead to go and buy them whatever they need at the store or gas station just I won't give them cash. If they don't take me up on the offer, well that's a pretty good indication of their intentions.
Yes, this is very true with panhandlers. It is my understanding that 95% of all cash given to panhandlers goes to pay for alcohol or crack (or less savory substitutes for same).

I suppose this mirrors the issue in the third world where aid money often ends up financing weapons and/or mansions for the ruling elites instead of feeding the hungry. :shrug:

[evanescence]

I've been reading quite a bit about world agriculture lately. One of the things that is so striking is the way leftwing critics of food aid to Africa seem to have universal agreement that giving food aid to Africa is bad because it just fosters dependency.

How come leftwingers never make this same argument against giving food aid to their own people in first world countries?

Are people in third world countries uniquely succeptable to 'dependency' in a way that people in first world countries are not?

What's up with this hypocrisy? Or is this just a double-standard? Or is it cognitive dissonance?

Fact is, the left is making one argument in one policy area and the opposite argument in another policy area. Because of this, it is hard to take either position seriously since at least one of the two positions is just bullshit partisan politics. I wonder which is which?

Giving food to Africa is a bad idea because the people who actually need it rarely receive the actual aid. Instead, the aid is taken by whatever regime is running things at the time. Politics and bureaucratic inefficiencies when combined with regime take overs make "helping" Africa extremely difficult.

[Zarquon]

Yes, this is very true with panhandlers. It is my understanding that 95% of all cash given to panhandlers goes to pay for alcohol or crack (or less savory substitutes for same).

I suppose this mirrors the issue in the third world where aid money often ends up financing weapons and/or mansions for the ruling elites instead of feeding the hungry. :shrug:
The Brazilian Approach appears to be successful, specifically Bolsa Familia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia) and Fome Zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fome_Zero).

[WFCY]

I realized I am posting in the wrong forum. Someone can move the following post. It's meant for another thread. Thanks.


It's not just dependency, which happens on a local level- its an individual choice whether you grow a dependency or you get pro-active in finding a job. "Dependency" is actually not very significant both culturally and financially. If you look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate), good welfare countries actually have far higher employment rates than ones with bad welfare (Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, even Cuba, all far better than US, UK, etc). And I don't even need to show the exact figures- The welfare payouts arn't even a fraction of the tax cuts, the bail out TARP, or the defence budget, it's a complete joke to blame welfare for budget deficit.

The importance of having a robust welfare program is bargining power for the labor force, which consists the vast majority of the population. If you do not understand what a bargining power is, put it this way- if the unemployment is high, then you have a high incentive to keep your job, you are willing to give in to worse working conditions and lower wages that your employer has to offer you. If the unemployment is low, then it is the other way around, because you feel confident that you can get another job easily. Same with unemployment benefits and job security. If there is good protection for the employed so that they cannot be so easily fired, and if there are good welfare taking care of the unemployed, then the bargining power for the workforce is high, and they would be more likely to receive better treatments at work, because if the employer do not provide them decent treatments, the workforce would be fine just being unemployed. They have the luxery to take more time to look for a job with satisfactory conditions.

So when it comes to issues like welfare, you have to look it in straight power terms. And this is not a local, individual matter. The bargining power of labor, is effected and effects all of those who rent their time for wages regardless where and which industrial sector. If one segment of the labor force (geographic, industrial, etc) has high unemployment, or bad welfare, bad protection against random layoff, etc, then eventually the people in that segment will move towards another segment which has a lower unemployment and better welfare/protections, and in turn, this will result in the increase of unemployment and lower the overall welfare/protections of the latter segment. The power of labor to bargin with the capitalist employers is something you cannot ignore when you discuss issues such as welfare. It's far more important than this whole "dependency" stuff, which I think is really a right-wing distraction hot with objectivist babble.

[Michael]

I realized I am posting in the wrong forum. Someone can move the following post. It's meant for another thread. Thanks.
Seems like the right thread to me since you are addressing welfare and the issue of dependency. :shrug:

It's not just dependency, which happens on a local level- its an individual choice whether you grow a dependency or you get pro-active in finding a job. "Dependency" is actually not very significant both culturally and financially. If you look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate), good welfare countries actually have far higher employment rates than ones with bad welfare (Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, even Cuba, all far better than US, UK, etc). And I don't even need to show the exact figures- The welfare payouts arn't even a fraction of the tax cuts, the bail out TARP, or the defence budget, it's a complete joke to blame welfare for budget deficit.

While some may argue that welfare is an unaffordable burden on society, I've certainly not made that argument nor did I allude to it.

The key issue I've raised in this thread is about the effectiveness of the policy.

The importance of having a robust welfare program is bargining power for the labor force, which consists the vast majority of the population. If you do not understand what a bargining power is, put it this way- if the unemployment is high, then you have a high incentive to keep your job, you are willing to give in to worse working conditions and lower wages that your employer has to offer you. If the unemployment is low, then it is the other way around, because you feel confident that you can get another job easily. Same with unemployment benefits and job security. If there is good protection for the employed so that they cannot be so easily fired, and if there are good welfare taking care of the unemployed, then the bargining power for the workforce is high, and they would be more likely to receive better treatments at work, because if the employer do not provide them decent treatments, the workforce would be fine just being unemployed. They have the luxery to take more time to look for a job with satisfactory conditions.
Yes, this certainly one of the features of welfare policy. However, when I evaluate public policy, I don't just look at those who benefit from the policy. One must also look at the social costs and the overall social results.

For example, big fat high-end tax cuts are enormously beneficial to the rich, just like 'welfare' is enormously beneficial to the working class. But that doesn't necessarily make it good public policy. Good public policy can only be judged in the context of the whole nation.

So when it comes to issues like welfare, you have to look it in straight power terms. And this is not a local, individual matter. The bargining power of labor, is effected and effects all of those who rent their time for wages regardless where and which industrial sector. If one segment of the labor force (geographic, industrial, etc) has high unemployment, or bad welfare, bad protection against random layoff, etc, then eventually the people in that segment will move towards another segment which has a lower unemployment and better welfare/protections, and in turn, this will result in the increase of unemployment and lower the overall welfare/protections of the latter segment. The power of labor to bargin with the capitalist employers is something you cannot ignore when you discuss issues such as welfare. It's far more important than this whole "dependency" stuff, which I think is really a right-wing distraction hot with objectivist babble.
Then why does the USA have such a high standard of living with such a lame welfare system?

According to your argument, the USA shouldn't be the rich and prosperous nation that it is - it should be (theoretically) surpassed by those nations that have far better welfare systems - but it isn't.

I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm only suggesting that it is insufficient to account for all the data.

And just to bring this issue around to the OP, it is generally recognized that 'welfare' for African states isn't particularly beneficial for those African states, particularly in the agricultural sector, particularly due to the issue of 'dependency'.

I'm asking if that same dynamic is true of 'human' welfare. I think it is possible, though I'm not saying that it is so (since I've not studied it thoroughly).

Essentially, I'm asking if the 'goals' of welfare are best served by mailing out checks. I'm not convinced that it is. I'm not attacking the 'goal' of welfare policy, I'm questioning the method or process of welfare delivery.

[JHC]

I realized I am posting in the wrong forum. Someone can move the following post. It's meant for another thread. Thanks.


It's not just dependency, which happens on a local level- its an individual choice whether you grow a dependency or you get pro-active in finding a job. "Dependency" is actually not very significant both culturally and financially. If you look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate), good welfare countries actually have far higher employment rates than ones with bad welfare (Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, even Cuba, all far better than US, UK, etc). And I don't even need to show the exact figures- The welfare payouts arn't even a fraction of the tax cuts, the bail out TARP, or the defence budget, it's a complete joke to blame welfare for budget deficit.

The importance of having a robust welfare program is bargining power for the labor force, which consists the vast majority of the population. If you do not understand what a bargining power is, put it this way- if the unemployment is high, then you have a high incentive to keep your job, you are willing to give in to worse working conditions and lower wages that your employer has to offer you. If the unemployment is low, then it is the other way around, because you feel confident that you can get another job easily. Same with unemployment benefits and job security. If there is good protection for the employed so that they cannot be so easily fired, and if there are good welfare taking care of the unemployed, then the bargining power for the workforce is high, and they would be more likely to receive better treatments at work, because if the employer do not provide them decent treatments, the workforce would be fine just being unemployed. They have the luxery to take more time to look for a job with satisfactory conditions.

So when it comes to issues like welfare, you have to look it in straight power terms. And this is not a local, individual matter. The bargining power of labor, is effected and effects all of those who rent their time for wages regardless where and which industrial sector. If one segment of the labor force (geographic, industrial, etc) has high unemployment, or bad welfare, bad protection against random layoff, etc, then eventually the people in that segment will move towards another segment which has a lower unemployment and better welfare/protections, and in turn, this will result in the increase of unemployment and lower the overall welfare/protections of the latter segment. The power of labor to bargin with the capitalist employers is something you cannot ignore when you discuss issues such as welfare. It's far more important than this whole "dependency" stuff, which I think is really a right-wing distraction hot with objectivist babble.

This was an excellent point. Even now, the talk over whether or not to extend unemployment makes me think of this very point.

I see that Michael is asking about the standard of living in the US being high. It depends how you measure it. If we, in the US, have trade deals with other countries that make things cheaper for Americans, that adds to the measure of our standard of living. If, on the other hand, we export jobs and our home-made success such as medicine, are so expensive the they become elite markets only, one would expect to see exactly what we do; lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, and arguably, more crime/imprisonment.

I also agree with Margot when she made the comment about this being an uncommon stance from the left. I've heard this from all sectors but not any generally adopted stance for the left.

[evanescence]

I agree with the exception of Medicare which will cost $6 trillion over the next decade.

[Michael]

This was an excellent point. Even now, the talk over whether or not to extend unemployment makes me think of this very point.

I see that Michael is asking about the standard of living in the US being high. It depends how you measure it. If we, in the US, have trade deals with other countries that make things cheaper for Americans, that adds to the measure of our standard of living. If, on the other hand, we export jobs and our home-made success such as medicine, are so expensive the they become elite markets only, one would expect to see exactly what we do; lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, and arguably, more crime/imprisonment.
Yes, aggregate statistics such as "standard of living" or even GDP per capita often conceal as much as they reveal.

That is to say, if America had just a few hundred trillionaires and everyone else had nothing, the USA might still have the same GDP per capita as they presently do, yet that would be a very radically different society, even though it shows the same high level of GDP per capita. This is what will happen if all jobs are exported offshore - taken to a radical extreme.

I also agree with Margot when she made the comment about this being an uncommon stance from the left. I've heard this from all sectors but not any generally adopted stance for the left.
As I tried to explain to Margot when she raised this point, that was one of the reasons I framed this discussion in the OP around the issue of foreign aid to African agriculture (i.e. 'welfare for states').

That is to say, the left definitely does make the "welfare=dependency" argument, but ONLY in respect of foreign aid and African agriculture. The leftwing does NOT make this argument with respect to human welfare. That strikes me as an interesting contradiction.

It is doubly interesting because the rightwing which normally does want to make the "welfare=dependency" argument in respect of American politics, definitely reverses policy with respect to foreign aid for African agriculture! The rightwing tends to like [indirect] subsidies for Monsanto (etc) to take over the agricultural industry in Africa.

I find it interesting that on some issues (like welfare), the right and left appear to hold inconsistent policy preferences depending on domestic/foreign positions, or human/state levels. Most significantly, there doesn't appear to be any substantial theoretical basis for each side having these 'differential' policy preferences (other than purely partisan political self interest).

[JHC]

Yes, aggregate statistics such as "standard of living" or even GDP per capita often conceal as much as they reveal.

That is to say, if America had just a few hundred trillionaires and everyone else had nothing, the USA might still have the same GDP per capita as they presently do, yet that would be a very radically different society, even though it shows the same high level of GDP per capita. This is what will happen if all jobs are exported offshore - taken to a radical extreme.


As I tried to explain to Margot when she raised this point, that was one of the reasons I framed this discussion in the OP around the issue of foreign aid to African agriculture (i.e. 'welfare for states').

That is to say, the left definitely does make the "welfare=dependency" argument, but ONLY in respect of foreign aid and African agriculture. The leftwing does NOT make this argument with respect to human welfare. That strikes me as an interesting contradiction.

It is doubly interesting because the rightwing which normally does want to make the "welfare=dependency" argument in respect of American politics, definitely reverses policy with respect to foreign aid for African agriculture! The rightwing tends to like [indirect] subsidies for Monsanto (etc) to take over the agricultural industry in Africa.

I find it interesting that on some issues (like welfare), the right and left appear to hold inconsistent policy preferences depending on domestic/foreign positions, or human/state levels. Most significantly, there doesn't appear to be any substantial theoretical basis for each side having these 'differential' policy preferences (other than purely partisan political self interest).

Hmmmm, interesting. I simply have never heard that argument from the left. My dad sure felt that way. He was far from a lefty, bless his heart. And from time to time, I've wondered if this could be the case. Hard to tell with so many fingers in the pie and so many motives.

[evanescence]

Yes, aggregate statistics such as "standard of living" or even GDP per capita often conceal as much as they reveal.



Everything works like this from studies to government statistics. Who knows what the actual truth is?

[Michael]

Hmmmm, interesting. I simply have never heard that argument from the left. My dad sure felt that way. He was far from a lefty, bless his heart. And from time to time, I've wondered if this could be the case. Hard to tell with so many fingers in the pie and so many motives.

As I said, that's the point of this thread. You will hear this argument from the left, but usually only in the context of foreign aid for Africa (see list of links provided). When the same facts are encountered in other policy areas, the left has a different policy preference. That is to say, paying welfare to humans tends to have the same effects as paying welfare to African states - it tends to encourage or facilitate bad behavior and corruption.

I'm curious about that particular distinction.

[evanescence]

As I said, that's the point of this thread. You will hear this argument from the left, but usually only in the context of foreign aid for Africa (see list of links provided). When the same facts are encountered in other policy areas, the left has a different policy preference. That is to say, paying welfare to humans tends to have the same effects as paying welfare to African states - it tends to encourage or facilitate bad behavior and corruption.

I'm curious about that particular distinction.

Human nature.

I Like this reference:

"Central to ******* was a view of human nature as selfish, calculating, idle and atomistic. Being selfish, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become idle. Therefore the only motivation for labour was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger."

Recognize that?

[Michael]

Human nature.

I Like this reference:

"Central to ******* was a view of human nature as selfish, calculating, idle and atomistic. Being selfish, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become idle. Therefore the only motivation for labour was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger."

Recognize that?
That looks like Randism - or neoliberalism - or radical classical liberalism.

Is there a point to this quiz? :ummm:

To point out that many on the rightwing view welfare as a reward for laziness is hardly news.

Btw, I consider that statement to be bullshit that isn't supported by any scientific data (i.e. propaganda). Indeed, most actual scientific data contradicts this statement. Marxist theory also contradicts this statement - man is a productive animal. The number of examples of labor undertaken without any reward or need for food is incalculable (but studiously ignored if it doesn't fit one's preferred politics).

In other words, I have thousands of reasons to do all kinds of different labor. I'm seriously short of reasons to do labor for some one else's profit - that requires 'great rewards' or 'fear of hunger'.

[evanescence]

That looks like Randism - or neoliberalism - or radical classical liberalism.

Classical Liberalism.

Is there a point to this quiz? :ummm:

No, not really. :shrug:

To point out that many on the rightwing view welfare as a reward for laziness is hardly news.

This is not a conservative talking point, but rather a philosophical statement about human nature.

Btw, I consider that statement to be bullshit that isn't supported by any scientific data (i.e. propaganda). Indeed, most actual scientific data contradicts this statement. Marxist theory also contradicts this statement - man is a productive animal. The number of examples of labor undertaken without any reward or need for food is incalculable (but studiously ignored if it doesn't fit one's preferred politics).

Man is only productive when he benefits somehow as an individual, for the most part. There are small exceptions.

In other words, I have thousands of reasons to do all kinds of different labor. I'm seriously short of reasons to do labor for some one else's profit - that requires 'great rewards' or 'fear of hunger'.

The world is based on this system. Someone profiting. Others doing the actual work. This has to say something about human nature.

[Michael]

This is not a conservative talking point, but rather a philosophical statement about human nature.
I disagree. It is a fundamental premise of American conservativism. It is not a generally accepted statement outside of that ideology.

Philosophically speaking, it is very difficult to 'prove' human nature.

As I noted, labor in one's own or family interest is quite common amongst humans. What is objectionable and requires 'great rewards or fear of hunger' is laboring for another's profit.

Man is only productive when he benefits somehow as an individual, for the most part. There are small exceptions.

If one defines "productive" as economically profitable, this begs the question (assumes the premise).

Housework and child-rearing are famously non-profitable labors, yet humans tend to labor at these pursuits quite willingly. Writing books that no one will ever read, composing songs that no one will every buy or composing poetry that no one will ever appreciate, are all common human labors that usually produce no profits or tangible or material benefits.

Gardening is yet another one of those popular labors that has little material value.

Bottom line is that humans routinely engage in labor just for the sake of labor, or the pleasure of labor. What humans don't do is labor for wages unless there is 'great reward or fear of hunger'.

The world is based on this system. Someone profiting. Others doing the actual work. This has to say something about human nature.
1. The world isn't based on this system - only some parts of some economies are organized that way. Even in the USA, this isn't entirely true.

For example, what is the profit and/or productivity derived from a soldiers' wage?

How about students? What is the profit or productivity derived from mandatory education? And what about families and the labor of child-rearing? Where is the profit and productivity in that?

2. This doesn't prove anything about human nature other than the fact that it can be manipulated in various ways.

[evanescence]

I disagree. It is a fundamental premise of American conservativism. It is not a generally accepted statement outside of that ideology.

It was started in Europe so I will have to disagree that it is not accepted by anyone but rabid, right wing Republicans.

Philosophically speaking, it is very difficult to 'prove' human nature.

Yeah, but history as well as many, many modern examples of human suffering kind of proves my point. People are selfish bastards…in general.

As I noted, labor in one's own or family interest is quite common amongst humans. What is objectionable and requires 'great rewards or fear of hunger' is laboring for another's profit.

I agree..


If one defines "productive" as economically profitable, this begs the question (assumes the premise).
Housework and child-rearing are famously non-profitable labors, yet humans tend to labor at these pursuits quite willingly.

Very true. I take care of two children 3 and under while attending college. It’s no walk in the park, and yet my family is still supporting itself.

Writing books that no one will ever read, composing songs that no one will every buy or composing poetry that no one will ever appreciate, are all common human labors that usually produce no profits or tangible or material benefits.

Should they get paid to do those things if no one wants to buy them? How would they support themselves? This discussion is about economics.

Perhaps mankind would likely be better off if we, as a species, existed as the Borg or something similar. No class warfare.. only individuals working for the greater good..whatever that may be.

Gardening is yet another one of those popular labors that has little material value.

Bottom line is that humans routinely engage in labor just for the sake of labor, or the pleasure of labor. What humans don't do is labor for wages unless there is 'great reward or fear of hunger'.

People do things for their own benefit not usually for others.


1. The world isn't based on this system - only some parts of some economies are organized that way. Even in the USA, this isn't entirely true.

I disagree. Many economies are this way. Incentive is the key to productivity.

For example, what is the profit and/or productivity derived from a soldiers' wage?

The same as any other. To earn a wage. Pay bills. Exist. Everything except air costs money. Water, food, taking a dump..everything. If someone could bottle air and patent it, and deprive other people of life giving air for profit, you can bet they would. Guarantee it.

How about students? What is the profit or productivity derived from mandatory education? And what about families and the labor of child-rearing? Where is the profit and productivity in that?

An education opens opportunity for better paying jobs. Having families is a primal instinct and it is done because that is the purpose of life.

People don’t have kids for their kid’s sake, but for their own sake. It is a desire.

2. This doesn't prove anything about human nature other than the fact that it can be manipulated in various ways.

Yes. Manipulated by other humans.

[Michael]

Yeah, but history as well as many, many modern examples of human suffering kind of proves my point. People are selfish bastards…in general.
I don't disagree with the assertion that many (or most) people tend to act like selfish bastards. That's rather obvious and self evident.

My point is that generalities about human nature cannot actually be proven or defined to everyone's satisfaction and thus cannot form the evidential basis or justification of any given policy (alone).

For example, if one defines 'wage earning' as 'productive labor' and classify unpaid housework and unpaid childrearing labor as 'non-productive labor' (as in fact we have always done with conventional economic theory), then it becomes obvious that women are rather less productive than males (which in reality, is nonsense - it only makes sense if you measure 'wage-labor' and ignore 'unpaid-labor').

My point here is that many actual labors in our society are classified as 'non-productive' simply because of the character of the economy is measured almost entirely in wages, assets and debts. If one measures only wages, then non-wage labor (such as childrearing) essentially disappears.

Very true. I take care of two children 3 and under while attending college. It’s no walk in the park, and yet my family is still supporting itself.
So, do you take care of these children for "great personal reward" or "fear of hunger"?

You may pick only one, and only from the choices listed (your terms).

Should they get paid to do those things if no one wants to buy them? How would they support themselves? This discussion is about economics.
Indeed it is.

I was only offering examples of human labor that appear to have no promise of "great personal reward" nor do they represent any attempt to address the great "fear of hunger".

I was just pointing out how this "great personal reward" or "fear of hunger" thing is a false dichotomy. It is only true of wage-labor, not labor.

Wage-labor is only a subset of the enterprise of human labor. Rules that may apply to the sub-set of wage-labor do not necessarily apply to the character of human labor. They are very different things.

Perhaps mankind would likely be better off if we, as a species, existed as the Borg or something similar. No class warfare.. only individuals working for the greater good..whatever that may be.
I doubt that very much. I see nothing in the patterns of human history that would suggest such a prediction to be remotely possible.

Besides, the epistemological impossibility of defining (or agreeing about) "the greater good" is sufficient to prevent humans from achieving it. Though, smaller subgroups most certainly can and will try to do so.

Human adaptability is what I think has got us to this point in time (and this whole mess) and so I can only rationally conclude that if we are to get past our present problems, it will likely be due to that same human adaptability as our defining quality. Borg-like uniformity has always [apparently] been the death of human societies.

[WFCY]

I see that Michael is asking about the standard of living in the US being high. It depends how you measure it. If we, in the US, have trade deals with other countries that make things cheaper for Americans, that adds to the measure of our standard of living. If, on the other hand, we export jobs and our home-made success such as medicine, are so expensive the they become elite markets only, one would expect to see exactly what we do; lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, and arguably, more crime/imprisonment.


I am just going to quote/pararphrase someone else here:

GDP is a pretty inaccurate measure of welfare of a society. There are alternatives, like the UN Human Development Index, and also the General Progress Indicator, which subtracts from GDP expenditures that harm the public (crime, pollution, etc.) and adds estimated value of authentic benefits (volunteer work, leisure, etc.). In the US, GPI has stagnated since the 1970s, though GDP has increased, so basically the growth going into very few pockets. That result correlates with studies of social indicators, the standard measure of health of a society. They tracked economic growth until the mid-1970s, then began to decline, reaching the level of 1960 by 2000 (the latest figures available). The correlation with financialization of the economy and neoliberal socio-economic measures is hard to miss, and not unique to the US by any means.


I don't think the standard of living in the US is that high, as far as HDI and GDI, US is low on the list of developed nations. And when you take into consideration its vast borders and natural resources, a relatively culturally and linguistically unified population, and complete lack of major disasters (like the medival plague), and having been spared from sheer destruction of all the major world wars in its territory, the fact that Americans do not have free health care, free education, etc, is a complete scadal. The country is flowing with wealth. Just ill distributed.

[Michael]

I am just going to quote/pararphrase someone else here:

GDP is a pretty inaccurate measure of welfare of a society. There are alternatives, like the UN Human Development Index, and also the General Progress Indicator, which subtracts from GDP expenditures that harm the public (crime, pollution, etc.) and adds estimated value of authentic benefits (volunteer work, leisure, etc.). In the US, GPI has stagnated since the 1970s, though GDP has increased, so basically the growth going into very few pockets. That result correlates with studies of social indicators, the standard measure of health of a society. They tracked economic growth until the mid-1970s, then began to decline, reaching the level of 1960 by 2000 (the latest figures available). The correlation with financialization of the economy and neoliberal socio-economic measures is hard to miss, and not unique to the US by any means.


I don't think the standard of living in the US is that high, as far as HDI and GDI, US is low on the list of developed nations. And when you take into consideration its vast borders and natural resources, a relatively culturally and linguistically unified population, and complete lack of major disasters (like the medival plague), and having been spared from sheer destruction of all the major world wars in its territory, the fact that Americans do not have free health care, free education, etc, is a complete scadal. The country is flowing with wealth. Just ill distributed.

This is part of my point in asking if 'mailing checks' to people is the right way to do this. As you have clearly observed, the USA is a very rich country, but it sure doesn't look that way once you leave the gated communities filled with McMansions.

In other words, does mailing out monthly checks to people actually change the inequality dynamic at all? It doesn't seem to, given that we continue to mail out checks regularly, but the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. :shrug:

Personally, I don't believe that mailing out monthly checks does much good overall. I'm not arguing that welfare policies ought to be eliminated - I'm just looking at the issue and it sure looks like this policy is a failure in acheiving its goals. There may be other/better/efficient ways to achieve the same goal (given that mailing checks just seems to foster dependency and tends to eliminate personal initiative - as is the case with agriculture in Africa).

[evanescence]

So, do you take care of these children for "great personal reward" or "fear of hunger"?

You may pick only one, and only from the choices listed (your terms).

I love my children, but it is a biological imperative. Having children is not a selfless endeavor.


Indeed it is.

I was only offering examples of human labor that appear to have no promise of "great personal reward" nor do they represent any attempt to address the great "fear of hunger".

I was just pointing out how this "great personal reward" or "fear of hunger" thing is a false dichotomy. It is only true of wage-labor, not labor.

Wage-labor is only a subset of the enterprise of human labor. Rules that may apply to the sub-set of wage-labor do not necessarily apply to the character of human labor. They are very different things.

My point is that people do things for personal gain, not for the greater good. Humankind would benefit if this were not the case.


I doubt that very much. I see nothing in the patterns of human history that would suggest such a prediction to be remotely possible.

Of course there's not. I used that example because i believe that mankind would be more successful and less violent and self centered if this scenario could come to pass.

Besides, the epistemological impossibility of defining (or agreeing about) "the greater good" is sufficient to prevent humans from achieving it. Though, smaller subgroups most certainly can and will try to do so.

Achieving the "Greater Good" is not possible with so many self interested people; and fear driven people, as well.

Human adaptability is what I think has got us to this point in time (and this whole mess) and so I can only rationally conclude that if we are to get past our present problems, it will likely be due to that same human adaptability as our defining quality. Borg-like uniformity has always [apparently] been the death of human societies. [/quote]

As you have said, there is no such pattern in history. It is just theory. We are not capable of being like the borg because the borg represents the very opposite of our natural tendencies. As I keep saying, self interest is the rule here.

[Michael]

I love my children, but it is a biological imperative. Having children is not a selfless endeavor.
Your answer does not appear to fall into the dichotomy that you earlier insisted upon as an explanation of ALL human behavior. Ergo, your answer is rejected as impossible, illogical or irrational (according to your argument, not mine!).

Personal reward (in which case your children are mere objects or accessories to your own ego), or fear of hunger? Pick one please.

(my point is to drive home to you the absurdity of this dichotomy - it just doesn't fit reality)

My point is that people do things for personal gain, not for the greater good. Humankind would benefit if this were not the case.
You are making an absolute statement and that's nonsense since if even a single example exists that violates your statement, the WHOLE statement is wrong.

Hence, I keep pointing out exceptions to your absolute statements and then you just repeat the same absolute statement again (and ignore the inconvenient exceptions). That's called 'going round and round' (that would be a polite term for it).

You either have to modify your absolute statement/claims or reconcile the exceptions. Merely restating your faith in your absolute statement doesn't accomplish anything. Absolute statements do not admit of any exception at all.

Of course there's not. I used that example because i believe that mankind would be more successful and less violent and self centered if this scenario could come to pass.

Arguments that are entirely 100% dependent upon your own subjective beliefs are generally not very persuasive to anyone but yourself.

Achieving the "Greater Good" is not possible with so many self interested people; and fear driven people, as well.

Again, this is framed as an absolute statement and therefore I reject it as a non-functional statement.

As you have said, there is no such pattern in history. It is just theory. We are not capable of being like the borg because the borg represents the very opposite of our natural tendencies. As I keep saying, self interest is the rule here.
If self interest was the absolute rule that you keep asserting, then we'd be well on our way to becoming Borg, given that optimal efficiency for optimizing self-interest would entail Borgism (greatest 'self-good' for greatest many).

It is our lack of obsession with self-interest efficiency that is the hallmark of humanity. We breed children that harm our self-interests and then spoil them with goodness. We also help the old and crippled people. We also sympathize with the downtrodden. These are all very human and all go against strict maxims about "self-interest".

You might try restating your premise in a more reasonable and justifiable manner: a majority of the population tends to act in a self-interested way in a majority of cases, most of the time. No one can dispute that statement.

[evanescence]

Your answer does not appear to fall into the dichotomy that you earlier insisted upon as an explanation of ALL human behavior. Ergo, your answer is rejected as impossible, illogical or irrational (according to your argument, not mine!).

Personal reward (in which case your children are mere objects or accessories to your own ego), or fear of hunger? Pick one please.

(my point is to drive home to you the absurdity of this dichotomy - it just doesn't fit reality)

Actually, it does. I answered "biological imperative". Let's examine that:

In order for species to continue to exist, they must reproduce. Conflicting biological imperatives, such as self-preservation and reproduction, are similarly resolved using a variety of methods by different organisms, from those who sacrifice themselves to procreate or increase the survival chances of their offspring to those who will abandon their descendants to their own luck when threatened so they may live and successfully procreate another day. The purpose of life if to replicate. Evolution insures that this can take place using adaption; and emotions are just chemical reactions that serve that purpose.



You are making an absolute statement and that's nonsense since if even a single example exists that violates your statement, the WHOLE statement is wrong.Hence, I keep pointing out exceptions to your absolute statements and then you just repeat the same absolute statement again (and ignore the inconvenient exceptions). That's called 'going round and round' (that would be a polite term for it).

Well it's nice that you're being polite even if it is facetious.

You either have to modify your absolute statement/claims or reconcile the exceptions. Merely restating your faith in your absolute statement doesn't accomplish anything. Absolute statements do not admit of any exception at all.

I do admit that there are exceptions, although rare. Unconditional love is absolute by its very nature, so if my "absolutist rhetoric" is illogical, so is unconditional love. Some people would give the shirt off of their back to help someone else. Those people are used up and die in poverty. But most people look after themselves, even if poorly, and care little of what becomes of other people, even family.

Arguments that are entirely 100% dependent upon your own subjective beliefs are generally not very persuasive to anyone but yourself.

I doubt that my opinion is any more subjective than yours.


Again, this is framed as an absolute statement and therefore I reject it as a non-functional statement.

More like highly generalized.



If self interest was the absolute rule that you keep asserting, then we'd be well on our way to becoming Borg, given that optimal efficiency for optimizing self-interest would entail Borgism (greatest 'self-good' for greatest many).

No we wouldn't. The borg is not self interested as a component, but as a whole.


It is our lack of obsession with self-interest efficiency that is the hallmark of humanity. We breed children that harm our self-interests and then spoil them with goodness. We also help the old and crippled people. We also sympathize with the downtrodden. These are all very human and all go against strict maxims about "self-interest".

A small percentage of the population does this, yes. Overwhelmingly, this isn't the case for most people.


You might try restating your premise in a more reasonable and justifiable manner: a majority of the population tends to act in a self-interested way in a majority of cases, most of the time. No one can dispute that statement.

Fine. The vast majority of mankind is self serving with the exception of a small percentage of the population.